The question
COVID pushed civil courts to adopt remote hearings quickly. As courts planned their next steps, how did people without lawyers experience remote hearings compared with attending in person?
The work
Nedim prepared and managed court-case data, conducted statistical analysis and helped interpret the results. The team collected post-hearing feedback by text and email from more than 2,000 respondents. Analyses focused on 1,878 people without legal representation, comparing preferences, perceived fairness, outcome satisfaction, stress and practical barriers across hearing formats.
What the study found
Unrepresented defendants attending remotely reported more favorable experiences of fairness, greater outcome satisfaction and less stress than those attending in person. Remote participation offered conveniences around work, childcare and transportation, while technology difficulties remained a concern. These findings came from an observational, non-probability sample; they do not establish that remote hearings caused the differences or work equally well for everyone.
When this kind of work helps
When an organization changes how it delivers a service and needs evidence about user experiences, access barriers and differences between groups.